Minimum Attributes of God

[ThatGirlAgain]

[Janx]

...What is the bare minimum of attributes that is required to deserve the label God?...

For today's major world theisms, God is viewed as the necessary reality which undergirds the contingent reality of our universe and our selves. This "necessary reality" called God is best conceived as the simplest possible entity, possessing no arbitrary limitations regarding knowledge, spatio-temporality, or causal efficacy.

Given this bare definition, it seems to me that the claims and complaints of the so-called "igtheists" are themselves incoherent.

Prior to accepting these minimal attributes of a God I have two issue to resolve:

a) Contingent God-like beings would not qualify as Gods. If not "God's" what should we call supper or omni-beings that are not a part of necessary reality.

b) The property of having no arbitrary limitations regarding knowledge, time, space and causal efficacy is irrational to me. My understanding of a mind (and the will associated with it) are rooted within our space-time causal material world. A much shorter description of this being would be "magical" because that term holds about as much sense as a will unhinged from everything that we know a it to be.


So I'll give my own definition instead:

God is a magical being with accountability for the human condition.

Thoughts?

[JoeyKnothead]

From Post 229:

...
God is a magical being with accountability for the human condition.

I render it down even more; God is a concept.

It is where we place all our 'vexing' questions and answers and totally devoid of any means of confirmation as to existence or properties, beyond those as expressed within the concept. It will always be a concept where all our unconfirmed 'knowledge' resides.

[EduChris]

...If not "God's" what should we call supper or omni-beings that are not a part of necessary reality...

Since we have no good evidence for their existence, and since they "are not a part of necessary reality," we may simply refer to them as superstitions.

...The property of having no arbitrary limitations regarding knowledge, time, space and causal efficacy is irrational to me. My understanding of a mind (and the will associated with it) are rooted within our space-time causal material world...

Whatever exists beyond our universe will necessarily seem foreign to us in some respects. The question is, what is more reasonable to accept as a working hypothesis: 1) a tautological argument that assumes the consequent, relies on arbitrary assumptions, faces insuperable prima facie obstacles, and offers no epistemically justified explanation; or 2) a volitional, mind-like necessary reality which offers an epistemically justified explanation for our universe and our selves?

Either option involves a stretch, but as rational people we have an obligation to pursue the only possible epistemically justified explanation, which is theism.

[Fuzzy Dunlop]

...If not "God's" what should we call supper or omni-beings that are not a part of necessary reality...

Since we have no good evidence for their existence, and since they "are not a part of necessary reality," we may simply refer to them as superstitions.

Under your new definition, would any theism not involving a god creating ex nihilo be redefined as atheism? Do we now define ancient Roman and Greek religion as atheistic, for example?

[EduChris]

...Do we now define ancient Roman and Greek religion as atheistic, for example?

No, we define them as "obsolete theisms," since few if any serious persons today even attempt to promote or defend the notion of contingent god(s).

[Fuzzy Dunlop]

...Do we now define ancient Roman and Greek religion as atheistic, for example?

No, we define them as "obsolete theisms," since few if any serious persons today even attempt to promote or defend the notion of contingent god(s).

That's an interesting idea. I think you're advocating for too much revision in our common vocabulary for it to have much hope of catching on, though.

The main difference between Apollo and Yahweh isn't that one is contingent while the other isn't. Both are contingent, it's just that one has had its followers stick around long enough to reinvent the way they interpret their mythology in light of these particular theological ideas. Yahweh can be both contingent and noncontingent depending on which generation of believers we ask; your terminology would seem to classify him as a superstition that evolved into a god, which is actually a pretty interesting way of putting it.

[EduChris]

...Apollo and Yahweh...Both are contingent, it's just that one has had its followers stick around long enough to reinvent the way they interpret their mythology in light of these particular theological ideas...

The genius of the Jewish contribution to theistic thought is precisely that the true God (Yahweh) is non-contingent; with the obvious corollary that contingent gods are not gods at all, but only superstitious idols.

[Fuzzy Dunlop]

...Apollo and Yahweh...Both are contingent, it's just that one has had its followers stick around long enough to reinvent the way they interpret their mythology in light of these particular theological ideas...

The genius of the Jewish contribution to theistic thought is precisely that the true God (Yahweh) is non-contingent; with the obvious corollary that contingent gods are not gods at all, but only superstitious idols.

Well yeah, they eventually decided to believe that. And I think that was more of a contribution of Greek philosophy than Judaism. But like I said, you have a superstition elevated to a god (in your terminology).

[JoeyKnothead]

From Post 235:

The genius of the Jewish contribution to theistic thought is precisely that the true God (Yahweh) is non-contingent; with the obvious corollary that contingent gods are not gods at all, but only superstitious idols.

Can EduChris show this is the "true" god?

Nope. Why? Because the god concept is where we put all that which we can't confirm.

Thus, to propose one has found a "true" god is as goofy as me claiming I'm it.

Further, calling anothers' gods "superstitious idols" is the very epitome of the pot calling the kettle black.

[EduChris]

...to propose one has found a "true" god is as goofy as me claiming I'm it...Further, calling anothers' gods "superstitious idols" is the very epitome of the pot calling the kettle black.

The Jewish tradition was the first to posit the notion of a non-contingent God. Being first doesn't necessarily prove that one is correct in all other respects, but this idea of one non-contingent deity did eventually win the day, as non-contingent gods have subsequently proven unable to retain the allegiance of any significant number of thoughtful, educated people.